|
|
Woah, hold up. You can't just reform something. That's like saying "Everyone agrees we should fix that car" and leaving it there. You have to first know what's wrong with the car and then you have to figure out what actions will fix it. You can't just leave that part out or all you'll have is a broken car and probably a big bill while you spend time doing the wrong thing.
What exactly do we mean by health care reform? If we don't know than all we're arguing is ideology and not the issue. You have to delve into the connections and facts and not the intent as intent is useless without positive action.
First and foremost can we agree this has little to do with health care? Because all I see is stuff about how it's being paid for. The argument that our health care system is bad because it doesn't pay for expensive treatments only applies to health care if the care is being refused. If I go to an emergency room from a major car accident and have a metal rod poking through my chest the hospital is going to save my life even without me handing them an insurance card. As far as I know people are not denied necessary medical care in the United States.
Before the objections about "But they can't pay for it!" start coming up now we're talking about health insurance. Like car insurance you pay a certain fee and if you get into a car accident the company helps pay for the expenses of getting your car fixed or a new one. This is necessary because not all that many people have the disposable income to just buy a new car if theirs is damaged or destroyed.
This is also true of health care but the fact remains that you can get treatment without the finances to support it. It may have negative consequences but you aren't going to just drop dead at the hospital door because your check bounced.
So what we're talking about is health insurance reform. Can we start from there? I make this distinction because all this talk of how the UK and Cuba and the Moon's health care is better/worse than the U.S.'s is getting on my nerves. It's irrelevant to the discussion. We aren't talking about how well our hospitals work. We're talking about how well people can pay for the care we get. This discussion reminds me of someone talking about having the community pay for getting puppies their shots and anyone who says "Well, maybe we should have the owners pay for the shots?" is told they hate puppies. The "health care" debate is the same because anyone who disagrees with "reform" must want the poorer members of society to drop dead and penniless at the feet of our megacorporations. Please.
So what is our health insurance reform plan? To create a public option, right? Among other things (like an oversight committee)? The question shouldn't be the people want reform vs. those that don't want reform. The question should be will the proposed plan actually fix the problem it's trying to solve? That's the real question.
A public option gives employees the option to take a government plan instead of their employer's plan, correct? Sounds good. That way the employer doesn't have power over the employee based on their inability to give up health care. Is that the idea?
Except now the government has that power instead. And unlike an employer you have no method to fight back if the government plan is bad. In fact there's specific provisions to prevent prosecution of the government in relation to the public option. Our main "American" defense against abuse, litigation, is denied from the outset.
And how is this public option superior to other insurance systems? It certainly doesn't decrease bureaucracy; it creates a need for new government departments to enforce the new set of laws, new government paperwork (*cough* the same guys who wrote IRS forms *cough*), new federally protected jobs...weren't we trying to reduce federal spending? Wasn't the whole point of this reform to get money back in the hands of the American people? All this money has to come from somewhere. While we seem to think of the federal budget as being bottomless the bottom is just really far down...ten trillion dollars down. This is not sustainable. And we do NOT want to hit that bottom.
I'll leave you with one final thought...I'm in the Marine Corps. When I signed my initial paperwork I was contracted a GI Bill kicker, an extra $350 a month while attending school. It was in writing, copied, signed, and promised in my original government contract.
It took me a year and a half after completing boot camp to finally get that money. I had to fight both the VA and DoD every step of the way, ignore being told several times that I didn't qualify for the kicker even though it was in my contract, and fight tooth and nail to finally get my money (which was back-paid).
This is how the federal government operates. And you expect them to treat you fairly for health insurance?
...
Jacquesne
|